Metz v. California Southern Railroad
Before: Sharpstein
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San. Bernardino County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Sharpstein, J. This appeal is from a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, for the sum of $357 and costs.
The only question presented by the record is, Do the findings support the judgment?
The court finds that at Kansas City, Missouri, in January, 1888, the plaintiff engaged passage on the defendant’s railroad to Colton, in this state, bought a ticket, paid his fare, and checked his trunk, containing, among other things, one lady’s gold watch and chain, of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars; one ady’s breast-pin and ear-rings, of the value of fifteen dollars; five lady’s gold rings, of the value of twenty-five dollars; one set lady’s small gold ear-rings, of the value of five dollars; two lady’s silver rings, of the value of two dollars; one lady’s gold bracelet, of the value of twenty-five dollars,— which the court found to be “proper articles of luggage and baggage for the plaintiff to carry as such.”
[330]Defendant had no knowledge of said contents when it received and checked said trunk, and assumed no other obligation in relation thereto than such as was imposed by law under the facts above stated; that is, there was no special contract between the parties relating to said trunk and contents.
When the trunk was delivered to plaintiff by defendant at Colton, the articles above named, together with other articles, the right to recover the value of which is conceded by appellant, were missing, and were not, and never have been, delivered to plaintiff.
The court further finds that all the articles so lost were carried in said trunk, not for trade, gift, or speculation, but for transportation. The value of these articles is included in the judgment recovered by plaintiff against defendant, and appellant insists that the judgment should be modified by deducting from it the value of said above. enumerated articles. And his contention is, that said articles, or none of them, constituted what in law is defined to be luggage or baggage.
Common carriers are required to receive and carry a reasonable amount of luggage for each passenger without charge. (Civ. Code, sec. 2180.)
“ Luggage may consist of any article intended for the use of a passenger while traveling, or for his personal equipment.” (Civ. Code, sec. 2181.)
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)